Anyhow let's move on, this thread is moving in a way that I didn't intend, and life is too short and all that.

All that I will say is that fact checking stuff can be an eye opener, if difficult sometimes to accept.

Probably best to move on to other things.

Sure.

So North Korea are "begging for war" according to the US ambassador to the UN.

Anyone moving their pension into gold..?

nope.

What is revealing here though, and in context it is perfectly understandable, is that the US are taking the strongman approach, while.......China is saying that "we won't allow war on the peninsula" and Russia are again showing a bit of global leadership.

Played incorrectly the US could find that when all is under the bridge Russia and China have gained more global 'prestige' at its expense, hastening a little the global power shifts of recent years. Equally the US has to factor in Chinese response if it were to attack NK.

Not so long ago when the US said 'jump' everyone responded 'how high'. Now the US just seemes to be getting cornered from every direction, which is a difficult place to be.

I hope America can walk positively forwards from this growing mess.

But again what the heck do I know.

yep, the US...damned if they do and damned if they don't....

i don't mind the US being on a more level playing field....whilst they have caused a lot of the mess the world is in, they have been pretty much the only nation willing to get stuck in, it is hardly all their fault. More players means more nations can start to carry the burden...
_________________www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching

China really don't want a war next door so I think if it gets that far that they will intervene more directly. They don't want a political vacuum either so maybe they would encourage someone else to take over?

China really don't want a war next door so I think if it gets that far that they will intervene more directly. They don't want a political vacuum either so maybe they would encourage someone else to take over?

Hmm depends on the type of conflict. I would be surprised if it is 'clean' enough for China to want to send troops into the killing fields. I suspect they'd wait for the worst of it to be over, then intervene in the aftermath.

China really don't want a war next door so I think if it gets that far that they will intervene more directly. They don't want a political vacuum either so maybe they would encourage someone else to take over?

Hmm depends on the type of conflict. I would be surprised if it is 'clean' enough for China to want to send troops into the killing fields. I suspect they'd wait for the worst of it to be over, then intervene in the aftermath.

I would expect their troops to build up on the borders in the coming weeks though.

indeed so would I. I will admit I am curious how China will prevent it getting that far, they obviously have something in mind.

A couple of related idle thoughts:-

1. NK missile tests might also be a bit of advertising and marketing, to attract future nation state customers who seek nukes.

2. If America gets punched hard and lands on its arse then it could really deteriorate quickly in terms of relative global standing. China and Russia both have vested interests in seeing that, as their relative positioning would then be enhanced. So the question is, given we know that budget cuts have overstretched the US Navy, and presumably other branches as well, given that many diplomatic posts are still vacant, does America, at this moment in time, have the necessary skill base to be sure of victory? However that is defined.

Hence my suggestion in posts above of how to enable a win win situation for both NK and the US. As always it's ahead of its day so to speak, but it could enable a better all round outcome.

China really don't want a war next door so I think if it gets that far that they will intervene more directly. They don't want a political vacuum either so maybe they would encourage someone else to take over?

Hmm depends on the type of conflict. I would be surprised if it is 'clean' enough for China to want to send troops into the killing fields. I suspect they'd wait for the worst of it to be over, then intervene in the aftermath.

I would expect their troops to build up on the borders in the coming weeks though.

Sorry, I didn't mean that they'd send troops in. More use their clear influence to have someone/people within the NK government remove KJU and replace them with a more sensible leader. That maybe forced (buy luxury) exile within China or the way that KJU disposes of any perceived threat (however minor).

2. If America gets punched hard and lands on its arse then it could really deteriorate quickly in terms of relative global standing. China and Russia both have vested interests in seeing that, as their relative positioning would then be enhanced. So the question is, given we know that budget cuts have overstretched the US Navy, and presumably other branches as well, given that many diplomatic posts are still vacant, does America, at this moment in time, have the necessary skill base to be sure of victory? However that is defined.

There is a threshold beyond which 'the necessary skill base' is exceeded by sheer volume - and this is not just one year, but decades of spending massively out in front of the 'pack'.

And don't use VietNam as a contrary example - NK is not VietNam (not least the US won't (in theory) make that mistake again). So I think the chances of the US getting hit hard enough to change the world order is fanciful thinking. At least for now.

BTW if they're going to start throwing nukes around, I hope they wait until next week. I'm within spitting distance of the NK border as we speak until Monday

I've asked our Chinese hosts their thoughts on this and they're all 'ah so what, we can't do anything about it, it is what it is'...
_________________BLOG now updating again!In a world where I feel so small, I can't stop thinking big...

2. If America gets punched hard and lands on its arse then it could really deteriorate quickly in terms of relative global standing. China and Russia both have vested interests in seeing that, as their relative positioning would then be enhanced. So the question is, given we know that budget cuts have overstretched the US Navy, and presumably other branches as well, given that many diplomatic posts are still vacant, does America, at this moment in time, have the necessary skill base to be sure of victory? However that is defined.

There is a threshold beyond which 'the necessary skill base' is exceeded by sheer volume - and this is not just one year, but decades of spending massively out in front of the 'pack'.

And don't use VietNam as a contrary example - NK is not VietNam (not least the US won't (in theory) make that mistake again). So I think the chances of the US getting hit hard enough to change the world order is fanciful thinking. At least for now.

BTW if they're going to start throwing nukes around, I hope they wait until next week. I'm within spitting distance of the NK border as we speak until Monday

I've asked our Chinese hosts their thoughts on this and they're all 'ah so what, we can't do anything about it, it is what it is'...

it's not what you've got, it's what your people are prepared to let you lose...in the UK's case, about 35, the USA about 3,500 and NK the total population -1...
_________________www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching

1. Money and defence spending means little if your assets aren't combat ready, e.g. 3 or 4 US naval fleet collisions in that part of the world this year. Add the facts that are being disclosed of the effects of year after year budget cuts.

2. Technology can fail. There are several ways (1) solar flare frying things, (2) an electromagnetic pulse perhaps from a weapon taking out all military equipment reliant on technology that isn't sufficiently protected, (3) Lyn Buchanan ex US Army remote viewer who famously got the job after somehow screwing with US Army computers (4) China for example is allegedly known to have very good abilities with computer hacking, same with Russia et all. Without their technological advantage where would the US be? (5) Retired US nuke base commanders and the like have gone on the record of how after visiting lights and crafts have appeared nukes either stopped responding or got dangerously close to being set off. Stuff happens.

3. Sheer weight of numbers can count for a lot and China has a lot of people.

I wouldn't worry Gus, I monitor global energy flows all the time. I would visit China or Guam in a heartbeat just now. Not so sure on Seoul though. I think it possible that they could take a hit.

But again what do I know.

Added:

Let me draw you a simple picture, whether you believe it or not is up to you.

The US Army Intelligence (remember they declassified this and sacked their team) employed Lyn Buchanan as a remote viewer after he accidentally messed with their computers. He is a nice helpful bloke by the way, trains viewers nowadays, well until relatively recently.

Now remote influencing is a different, but related, skill set to remote viewing, and I am telling you that I believe NK has a world class viewing team. If they also have a world class influencing team....ships colliding with overworked sailors getting distracted.....

Just a theory that obviously I can't prove. But if the US have zero idea why their ships are crashing in that part of the world, given that they have admitted to in the past employing people themselves to do precisely that sort of stuff....

3. Sheer weight of numbers can count for a lot and China has a lot of people.

.

I appreciate that China has historically been NK's only ally, but do you really think that they would go to war with the US in defence of KJU?

Their financial reserves are heavily invested in US government debt, their factories produce vast amounts of goods for the US and their allies and global trade in goods and commodities is largely done in the USD that clears via the US banking system.

As far as negotiating a solution that counts as a "win" for NK, that goes against the principles of "not negotiating with terrorists". It would send out a message to all rogue states that all you have to do is establish a credible nuclear weapons programme and you'll get whatever you want
_________________2016: Just riding my bike....
Hot Chillee ride captain (sponsored by Specialized, Sigma Sports, Wattbike, Le Marq, Wahoo, BOA, Sportique, Pro-Cycle Insurance, Maserati)

3. Sheer weight of numbers can count for a lot and China has a lot of people.

.

I appreciate that China has historically been NK's only ally, but do you really think that they would go to war with the US in defence of KJU?

Their financial reserves are heavily invested in US government debt, their factories produce vast amounts of goods for the US and their allies and global trade in goods and commodities is largely done in the USD that clears via the US banking system.

As far as negotiating a solution that counts as a "win" for NK, that goes against the principles of "not negotiating with terrorists". It would send out a message to all rogue states that all you have to do is establish a credible nuclear weapons programme and you'll get whatever you want

no I don't think China would Whisk. I believe them when the say that they won't let things get that far. I am just curious at what they have in mind to prevent war.

NK is a sovereign nation state, like it or not.

Both India and Pakistan were relatively recently in a relatively similar position re developing nukes, but the world accepted them.